If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Comment

OpenMP is old technology (the 1.0 revision though), and even Visual Studio 2005 had it. It is in LLVM/Clang's power to do it as it can improve performance of some software packages, if not, it is normal to get some flack for this, doesn't it seem fair for you?

For comparison when Google's Chrome had the fast JS VM, all people praised them and anyone having an interpreter was bashed in media and everyone have now a full JIT. But similarly when IE had hardware acceleration and Google Chrome didn't, everyone was bashing Google Chrome. Is it fair in a competitive world (as the compilers do compete, as being at least 4 major compilers fighting for improvements: VC++, GCC, Clang, Intel, ...) and missing a major feature for multicore (when today no CPU you can buy, including phones, is single core).

Comment

OpenMP is old technology (the 1.0 revision though), and even Visual Studio 2005 had it. It is in LLVM/Clang's power to do it as it can improve performance of some software packages, if not, it is normal to get some flack for this, doesn't it seem fair for you?

For comparison when Google's Chrome had the fast JS VM, all people praised them and anyone having an interpreter was bashed in media and everyone have now a full JIT. But similarly when IE had hardware acceleration and Google Chrome didn't, everyone was bashing Google Chrome. Is it fair in a competitive world (as the compilers do compete, as being at least 4 major compilers fighting for improvements: VC++, GCC, Clang, Intel, ...) and missing a major feature for multicore (when today no CPU you can buy, including phones, is single core).

To be fair, LLVM chose not to implement OpenMP because a new X.0 spec was coming out, so they just decided to start there and move forward. Which they did. Patches got posted months ago under RFC. So its not that they COULDNT do it, they just decided to wait for the new version and start there instead of trying to do 2 versions at the same time

Comment

I think that it is more like some base LLVM main architecture flaw that prevent to catch GCC in code quality. I remember 4+ years ago articles that state LLVM was so good, and we have LLVM based radeon shader that lag behind Catalyst, OpenMP still not implemented, code quality lag behind GCC with exception of few anecdotal special selected cases, etc.

About comparison, as usual "not apple/ubuntu biased" atricle, for example GCC -O2 have no relation with clang -O2, everybody know that, as very different passes (from hundreds!) choices, like GCC -O2 more like clang -O3 and you compare compiler speed 30 passes vs 200+ passes. Sure it is intentional to continue to post again and again that compiling speed "benchmark".

Comment

I think that it is more like some base LLVM main architecture flaw that prevent to catch GCC in code quality. I remember 4+ years ago articles that state LLVM was so good, and we have LLVM based radeon shader that lag behind Catalyst, OpenMP still not implemented, code quality lag behind GCC with exception of few anecdotal special selected cases, etc.

About comparison, as usual "not apple/ubuntu biased" atricle, for example GCC -O2 have no relation with clang -O2, everybody know that, as very different passes (from hundreds!) choices, like GCC -O2 more like clang -O3 and you compare compiler speed 30 passes vs 200+ passes. Sure it is intentional to continue to post again and again that compiling speed "benchmark".

The results from the tests don't seem so clear cut to me...

Comment

I think that it is more like some base LLVM main architecture flaw that prevent to catch GCC in code quality. I remember 4+ years ago articles that state LLVM was so good, and we have LLVM based radeon shader that lag behind Catalyst, OpenMP still not implemented, code quality lag behind GCC with exception of few anecdotal special selected cases, etc.

About comparison, as usual "not apple/ubuntu biased" atricle, for example GCC -O2 have no relation with clang -O2, everybody know that, as very different passes (from hundreds!) choices, like GCC -O2 more like clang -O3 and you compare compiler speed 30 passes vs 200+ passes. Sure it is intentional to continue to post again and again that compiling speed "benchmark".

Heeeeey we got a new troll. its okay little buddy you just go off and believe whatever you want *pats head* Maybe one day you'll even be a real boy